Allowed

Surendra Chaudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Apr 2025CRLR/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner convicted under Section 138 NI Act sought quashing of trial court conviction and appellate dismissal after settling the cheque dishonour dispute by compromise. Complainant confirmed the settlement with no objection, so the High Court allowed the petition, quashed both judgments and acquitted him.

What the court decided

AI extract

Surendra Chaudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan Vs State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:15522]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 508/2025

¶4

Surendra Chaudhary Son Of Shri Satyanarayan, Resident Of 2815, Hari Jethi Ka Chowk, Bagru Walo Ka Rasta, Purani Basti Jaipur (Raj) At Present 798, Omaxe City Ajmer Road, Rajasthan

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Hawa Singh Chaudhary Son Of Shri Matadeen, Resident Of Treasury Gard, Sub Treasury Office, Tehsil Sanganer Jaipur (Raj)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner	: Mr. Neeraj Sharma, Adv. Mr. Surendra Chaudhary (petitioner in person)
For Respondents	: Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Hawa Singh Chaudhary (complainant/respondent inperson)

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶12

Order

¶13

07/04/2025

¶14

Defect pointed out by the Registry is waived.

¶15

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash and set aside the judgment dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.12, H.Q. Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court’) in Criminal Case No.243/2021 whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1881’) for two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of

[2025:RJ-JP:15522]

[CRLR-508/2025]

(2 of 4)

Rs.11,00,000/- and in default thereof, three months' simple imprisonment.

¶20

Against the impugned order dated 12.03.2024, the petitioner filed a Criminal Appeal No.17/2024 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, H.Q. Sanganer (hereinafter referred to as learned 'Appellate Court’), whereby learned Appellate Court vide impugned judgment dated 27.02.2025, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, upheld the judgment dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned trial Court.

¶21

Aggrieved of the impugned judgments and orders dated 27.02.2025 and 12.03.2024 passed by learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court respectively, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the parties have arrived at a compromise and the dispute between them has been amicably settled, therefore, the present petition may be allowed and the impugned judgments dated 27.02.2025 and 12.03.2024 passed by learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court respectively may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be acquitted from the charge levelled against him under Section 138 of the Act of 1881. The compromise deed has also been annexed with the petition (Ann.-3).

¶23

The petitioner-Surendra Chaudhary and the

¶24

complainant/respondent No.2-Hawa Singh Chaudhary both are personally present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsel.

[2025:RJ-JP:15522]

[CRLR-508/2025]

(3 of 4)

This Court has interacted with the complainant/respondent No.2 who has admitted the factum of compromise and submitted that he has no objection if the impugned judgments are quashed and set aside.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the parties have arrived at a compromise, therefore, in the light of compromise, order of the conviction of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act may be set aside.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶31

In view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgments dated 27.02.2025 and 12.03.2024 passed by learned Appellate Court and learned trial Court respectively are liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. The judgment dated 12.03.2024 passed by learned Special Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act Cases) No.12, H.Q. Sanganer, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.243/2021 as well as the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, H.Q. Sanganer in Criminal Appeal No.17/2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner need not to surrender. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges.

¶33

Suspension of Sentence Application No.106/2025 and any other pending applications, also stand disposed of accordingly.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:15522]

[CRLR-508/2025]

A copy of this order be sent to learned trial Court for

¶38

compliance.

¶39

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J

¶40

AARZOO ARORA /136

Surendra Chaudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Surendra Chaudhary Son of Shri Satyanarayan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramswaroop S/O Late Shri Ramkaran Ghasal Vs State of Rajasthan

Babli Alias Raman Son of Matoli Vs State of Rajasthan

Inder Ram Son of Chetram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chand Bairwa Son of Parmaram Bairwa Owner Filling Station Vs State of Rajasthan

Panna Ram S/O Shri Maga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Akhtar Hussain Bhayyu S/O Abdul Khalik Vs State of Rajasthan